POD: 1800, France wank

I wasn´t thinking about Bernadotte taking over as French head of state in the 1790s, but at some later point in the case that Napoleon should suddently die for whatever reason before deposing the Spanish Bourbons. Would Bernadotte be relevant as new emperor or would some other person take over? And would that person make other choices than Napoleon?
 
Well, maybe you can't see why many people would revere the man Napoleon, but the fact nonetheless is that this man has many fans 2 centuries later.

Of course, napoleonic propaganda was very efficient post mortem. But there were other reasons too. The napoleonic wars, except in Spain, were not the bad guy against the good guys. Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia were no less imperialist than France.

No need for strawmanning. I'm not saying "Bonaparte was evil because imperialism". I'm saying "Bonaparte led his country to the destruction of his state's democracy, the utter defeat of his state, the foreign imposition of counter-revolution and deographic disaster that caused much more woe for more than a century to come, and this wouldn't have happened without him; hence he was a bad leader".

I don't contend that he was bad because he was "the bad guy"; I contend that he was bad because he was blinded by his own ambition into making stupid choices, he had no grasp of long-term strategy and he thus doomed his country.

And the wars did not start with Napoleon. He inherited war from the previous revolutionary governments.

Bonaparte did not inherit all his wars; he caused plenty of them. I do not believe it is reasonable to suggest that everyone else in Europe was possessed by an undying counter-revolutionary fervour that would keep going no matter what. On the contrary—they were motivated by the fact that Bonaparte's France could not be coexisted with, as I have explained already in this thread and I have not seen any proper reply to.

If they had felt that they could do it and be safe, the other European nations would eventually have settled down with the French Republic, even if it took several wars to do it. Self-interest trumps all, as always. They could never have done that with the French Empire, because of Bonaparte's behaviour that resulted from his insatiable ambition. There were many, many points in time when he could have rested content with what he had and not tried to gain anything more, and that would have been enough for him to win. The latest of those was when he tried to force the rest of Europe to tolerate tremendous French interference in their economies even at a time when the army of France itself was marching on British boots. Bonaparte could have been content with being leader of the foremost power in Europe, but he wasn't; he had to be leader of the only power in Europe, not merely stronger than any of the other powers but dominant over them. No achievement, however glorious, was ever enough for him, and that was his downfall; it's also why he was a poor leader.
 
Louis, Lucien and Talleyrand form a new consulate after Napoleon's unexpected death in 1807 (Joseph is quietly left alone in Naples).

With Talleyrand guiding policy a secure France is much more likely
 
demographic disaster.

I think blaming Napoleon for the demographics is a bit harsh. The French had already started on demographic decline prior to his arrival. Obviously the troop casualties from the wars played their role, they were greater per capita than the WW1 casualties, but that was just an accentuation of the trend, rather than the inspiration for it. It is actually fairly constant across the century. Even if the Republic had stayed in charge, and there hadn't been any foreign conflicts whatsoever(whether that would have happened is up for debate, the Republic did declare the First Coalition wars ended up in the second, so it wasn't impossible that they'd be fighting their own conflicts), the population difference later on is just going to be a matter of degrees. Of course there is the difference of controlling additional territory, which adds extra population on, but that is just because one controls extra territory and not any specific demographic causes. Their population might be reduced relative to their OTL position as they are integrated into France as well, and the potentially more secular nature of the Republic might impact things too, although the latter of those is purely speculation.
 
I think blaming Napoleon for the demographics is a bit harsh. The French had already started on demographic decline prior to his arrival. Obviously the troop casualties from the wars played their role, they were greater per capita than the WW1 casualties, but that was just an accentuation of the trend, rather than the inspiration for it. It is actually fairly constant across the century. Even if the Republic had stayed in charge, and there hadn't been any foreign conflicts whatsoever(whether that would have happened is up for debate, the Republic did declare the First Coalition wars ended up in the second, so it wasn't impossible that they'd be fighting their own conflicts), the population difference later on is just going to be a matter of degrees. Of course there is the difference of controlling additional territory, which adds extra population on, but that is just because one controls extra territory and not any specific demographic causes. Their population might be reduced relative to their OTL position as they are integrated into France as well, and the potentially more secular nature of the Republic might impact things too, although the latter of those is purely speculation.

OTL France successfully assimilated the Alsatians to a great extent through offering them political liberty and treating them as Frenchmen, as opposed to Imperial Germany which treated them as conquered subjects and not as Germans. I would argue that the Rhineland could quite possibly have been assimilated in exactly the same way, especially if the anti-revolutionary powers of Europe, in reaction against the continued existence of Revolutionary France, were even more reactionary than in OTL.

The absolutely tremendous casualties of the Napoleonic Wars—vastly disproportionately consisting of one gender, which of course made it worse—due to Bonaparte conscripting practically every young man who could pick up a rifle and sending them off to die for his insatiable ambitions can be blamed squarely on him. There may well have been a falling birthrate without him anyway, that's absolutely a fair point, but not killing ~10% of the men in France for Bonaparte's ambition would have helped an awful lot.

The Republic may well have fought wars, but I doubt that it would have ever done things like the Peninsular War or the invasion of Russia, and after enough French victories the powers of Europe could have settled down with the Republic; they never could with Bonaparte in charge because he was so utterly incapable of any rapprochement with other European powers that didn't consist of "you do exactly what I say".
 

Mostly agrees with you. The best way to wank France is to avoid Napoléon.

The Republic was only successful on the battlefield, and even that was to a large degree due to Napoleon's own efforts (the War of the Second Coalition was nearly a disaster until he turned it around). It was not at all a stable government and in fact faced civil war throughout its existence. Napoleon brought stability to France and reformed its domestic institutions in many positive ways. The downside of his rule, of course, was that he was constantly at war, which finally led to his demise - but honestly, almost any non-Bourbon regime in France in 1800 would have been. The rest of Europe was loath to accept any kind of French government besides the Bourbon monarchy.

No. There were plenty of good generals in the French Republican army like Masséna who Napoléon himself called the beloved child of victory. When Napoléon took power the directorate was mostly stable and it would have continued under one form or another. And yes, plenty of European governments were willing to accept a french Republican government. Look at how Prussia asked for peace after ONE battle during the war of the first coalition. In 1795 the UK was willing to stop the war against France but the Directorate rejected it and they made peace with Napoléon in 1802. It was Napoléon stupidity that broke the peace of Amiens.

If the French were wise enough to pick a more cautios leader. Who is likely to be picked?

I assume a potential candidate could have been Jean Baptiste Bernadotte?

The leadership would probably has been assumed by a coalition of military and political figures. Men like Augereau, Carnot, Talleyrand, Barras or Sieyès. I really think the directorate could have continued in one form or another.
 
No. The Directorate could not have continued any way. It was the most corrupt regime France ever had. It was highly unpopular. It made coups to purge itself from the will of the majority.

Its clever members knew the Directorate was doomed. The army was the only working institution of France. The glorious generals were the only popular people on the stage and that's why clever members of the Directorate rallied around one glorious, clever and ambitious general to found a new regime that be solid.

By the way, Napoleon destroyed no liberty because liberty had already been destroyed by the revolutionaries themselves in the years 1791/1793.

And concerning Napoleon's stupidity in breaking the peace of Amiens, this stupidity has an other name : Britain.

Napoleon made some fatal decisions. But this one was not his.
 
No. There were plenty of good generals in the French Republican army like Masséna who Napoléon himself called the beloved child of victory. When Napoléon took power the directorate was mostly stable and it would have continued under one form or another. And yes, plenty of European governments were willing to accept a french Republican government. Look at how Prussia asked for peace after ONE battle during the war of the first coalition. In 1795 the UK was willing to stop the war against France but the Directorate rejected it and they made peace with Napoléon in 1802. It was Napoléon stupidity that broke the peace of Amiens.

Certainly there were other good generals in the army, but the war of the Second Coalition was unfolding very poorly for France when Napoleon returned from Egypt. Moreover, that war demonstrates that it did not take much for the rest of Europe to resume hostilities. They were willing to make a temporary peace with the French Republic to buy themselves time (especially when they had other interests, like Prussia in Poland) but I have doubts that they were willing to accept it permanently. And by the same token, the governments of the Republic were themselves generally eager to prosecute the wars and continue the "spread of liberty" - and to get more war booty, since war gains were very important government revenues.

In the long run, I think it's tough to create a timeline in which the Republic can reach a genuine, lasting peace with its neighbors.
 
Just to give some perspective on the 'stability' of the Directory: they had a coup every year. Say what you will about the Third (and Fourth) Republic's political instability, but at least the transition from one government to the next were mostly peaceful, parlementarian affairs. The Directory was incredbly unstable. It also was botching the wars, until Bonaparte achieved victory in a secondary theater (so resoundingly he actually forced Austria to come to terms).

And at Amiens, both parties negotiated in bad faith and started breaking the provisions of the treaty as soon as they walked away from the table. Malta was kept by the UK until 1964, for goodness's sake! Britain's behaviour in the Cape was less than stellar as well. Did Bonaparte go beyond what was deemed acceptable in the Treaty of Amiens in invading Switzerland? He sure did. Did the British violate the treaty as well, and on their own? You can bet they did.
 
OTL France successfully assimilated the Alsatians to a great extent through offering them political liberty and treating them as Frenchmen, as opposed to Imperial Germany which treated them as conquered subjects and not as Germans. I would argue that the Rhineland could quite possibly have been assimilated in exactly the same way, especially if the anti-revolutionary powers of Europe, in reaction against the continued existence of Revolutionary France, were even more reactionary than in OTL.

That is exactly the problem I'm referring to. They're going to get assimilated into France and their birth rates are going to fall as a result; the adoption of contraceptives and control over childbearing tends to go along cultural and lingual lines in the early adopting societies, at least from the yale series I had watched on the subject (where they had referred to the case of Belgium and Spain, where they spread along the linguists map). France successfully integrating those regions will cause their birth rates and population growth to fall, in all probability. Of course they will be assimilated into France too, but that is only the assimilation of territory, and not demographics itself.

The absolutely tremendous casualties of the Napoleonic Wars—vastly disproportionately consisting of one gender, which of course made it worse—due to Bonaparte conscripting practically every young man who could pick up a rifle and sending them off to die for his insatiable ambitions can be blamed squarely on him. There may well have been a falling birthrate without him anyway, that's absolutely a fair point, but not killing ~10% of the men in France for Bonaparte's ambition would have helped an awful lot.

Demographic impacts of population imbalance are long lasting, but one can compare states that took tremendous casualties during the period to France. According to wikipedia Spain took 500,000 casualties, which is some 5%! of their population of around 10m, and yet over the next ~140 years they had a growth rate of 250%. Portugal's losses were even more severe, at 200,000 out of a population of 3m, or circa 6.6%, and yet they grew from 3m to 7.7m. The British had 300,000 out of 10.5m, again according to wikipedia, and yet their population near quintupled from 10.5m to 48m. These were states that all took heavy casualties, even if not on the scale of France (and in the case of Spain/Portugal it was probably somewhat more spread across the genders due to the nature of the fighting there, but I'd still imagine it would be primarily concentrated in the male sector of the population), but their population recovered from it. France didn't, which leads me to the conclusion that while losses from the war are an important factor, and after all can only be partially (albeit that partial nature is the majority, by a large factor) be related to Napoleon, Napoleon himself can't be held to account for the long nature of French demographic problems.

The Republic may well have fought wars, but I doubt that it would have ever done things like the Peninsular War or the invasion of Russia, and after enough French victories the powers of Europe could have settled down with the Republic; they never could with Bonaparte in charge because he was so utterly incapable of any rapprochement with other European powers that didn't consist of "you do exactly what I say".

There aren't really accurate casualties on the various coalitions, so it is hard to look at the First/Second coalitions. There was also of course internal disturbances such as in the Vendee. What is in addition, to stop at least some more wars from popping up between France and enemies? Even if every statement in regard to Napoleon is true on your account (I'm not arguing one way or another), the people who lead the Republic in his absence will not automatically be brilliant statesmen. It is easily possible that additional wars could happen before it is completely proven that the French cannot be dislodged from their position, and additional casualties are going to be sustained from that.

Not to mention that while Napoleon may not be leader, there may be somebody else who shares at least some similar traits. The Directorate wasn't exactly the ideal government after all.
 
I think a good time to bump off Nap is the 1803 timeframe. He's done away with the Directory and given France some stability. The continental powers will likely try to reverse the gains France has made to date, but France has some good generals/military so it's possible that everyone tries/fails and learns to coexist if France remains passive rather than Naps aggression. There'll be a power struggle to assume Nap's position, but if a sane leader emerges, the world could slowly learn to get along.

Waiting too long means everyone really hates France and has motivation to keep on trying to reverse the gains, because the gains have kept on multiplying.

need to balance out stability, gains, but not too much gains, before replacing Nap.
 
Top